Google Chrome Is Getting Automatic Blocking of Malicious Downloads 138
An anonymous reader writes "Google today announced Chrome is getting an automatic download blocking feature for malware. Google has already added the new functionality to the latest build of Chrome Canary. All versions of Chrome will soon automatically block downloads and let you know in a message at the bottom of your screen. You will be able to "Dismiss" the message, although it's not clear if you will be able to stop or revert the block."
Nanny state crap (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nanny state crap (Score:4, Insightful)
Well. There goes your downloads of TOR and Transmission... What's blocked next?
Maybe XBMC. Those plugins are GATT and SOPA problems just waiting to happen.
If people want to cut the cable? Just wait for Google to "steal" the XBMC source for GoogTV, like they raped Linux for Android.
The moral of this speculative fable? Google should be making software, not policy decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
But us users need protection from ourselves!
Consume media. Don't think.
Re: (Score:2)
Spirit of GPL, letter of GPL. Through the eye of that needle, Google has made a fortune, while contributing a pittance.
It is a form of license exploitation, bordering on theft.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This latest build of Chrome Canary is indispensable in my job at the coal mine.
meanwhile googleupdate.exe is in the background (Score:1)
So it already has a drive-by download installed and running. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a drive-by, more a bundle. But you get that kinda crap bundled with lots of free stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Anyway, I'm way less worried about some lame malware developer's effect on society than Google's.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that's the intention, and software always works as intended, so we have nothing to worry about. Automatically installing software from whatever server that googleupdate.exe thinks is the mothership has no potential security problems of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we need a (+1, Snarky) moderation option.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because there's no possible way anyone could ever hack the Google update servers and have exploit code silently installed on most Chrome users' machines within...oh, a relatively short amount of time.
Is the automatic updater as much fun as the Firefox extension updater, where they reset the "auto-update all the time" preference to 'yes' every time you update the main program?
Code signing (Score:2)
Bah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet they wont let me disable the god forsaken auto complete in the address bar. I completely ditched Chrome because of that damned evil annoyance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You should use Srware Iron, a Chromium fork. It removes a LOT of the nastiness and annoyances from Chrome. I've been using it as my standard for years and ditched chrome completely since v29's fucked up New Tab Page.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... in other words, most things that seem different or unusual correlate with something that should be hidden. If that's your meaning, disrespectfully disagreed.
Re:Bah... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That addresses part of the privacy concern, but not the fact that some people don't want the goddamn browser "correcting" our typing without asking. At least the command shells these days wait for you to ask for it.
Re: (Score:3)
does not work. They still auto complete from history and other sources. Already been down that road and had google devs tell me, "nobody sane would want to turn that off"
Re: (Score:2)
Still does not work, please feel free to try it. I've been down this road several times.
Re: (Score:3)
"You can disable history and not use bookmarks" Sounds like a reasonable solution....[/sarcasm]
Re:Bah... (Score:4, Insightful)
They're approximately correct with that. Autocomplete is a huge help, and only a problem for people in bad situations where they need to hide what URLs they access or their search strings. If someone is going to give you trouble over your auto-complete, get that person out of your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox has had a problem for years where field autocomplete will automatically change capitalization. It makes it impossible for me to log into some of my development tools, because it enforces the capitalization change no matter what. I use Firefox for one tool login and Opera for the other.
Also, I was slamming my head against a desk, trying to find out why my web site caused Firefox to insert usernames into the IRC channel field of a user's profile page. Turns out, Firefox will automatically insert yo
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's sensitive, why the fuck are you even saving those URLs? Did you know that all major browsers have implemented private mode for this purpose since a long time ago?
Re:Bah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, that's one workaround. He found an easier workaround - switch to a less arrogant browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're not the first to say "customers don't know what they like, I'll tell those idiots what they like!" Good luck with that plan.
Re: (Score:3)
Herp Derp much? You expect corporate users to do that? Have you ever even met a user?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they just call it autocomplete, like everyone else, rather than call it a "prediction service?"
Re: (Score:3)
You never tried it. Go ahead, and see how it still auto completes. I already have that unchecked.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting... I find Chrome's autocomplete to be nearly perfect for me, and it's probably my primary reason for staying with Chrome. This is definitely the sort of thing where personal taste would come into play, though, and I can see its behavior being annoying if you're not on its wavelength.
Not sure how this is different (Score:4, Insightful)
Chrome already blocks malicious downloads. Not sure how this is new. Maybe it's a more advanced version of the existing feature.
The existing feature already looks like the current screenshot, except the text might be different. And yes, you can allow downloads using the drop down on the right.
Possibly this is integration of anti-virus hooks? I think the existing version might just use a Google list of known safe and dangerous downloads.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you go to a site to download something that isn't an executable, and there are all these fraud links that, when clicked, start an auto download of a .exe or similar. Now you're two layers of defense defeated. You must carefully delete it without clicking on it. You have one more layer, "This is an executable, are you sure you want to run it?"
I'm fine with a block of this mechanism. Oh you can be careful, but grampa? Kids? You with a clumsy finger on that 3rd and last layer?
Re: (Score:3)
I've no idea what the parent is talking about. Windows -- for several versions -- marks downloaded executables as having been downloaded and will warn you when you attempt to run them.
Re: (Score:3)
it's probably a mechanism to deal with the fact that the previous mechanism flagged .pdf as potentially malicious -every time- while it never said anything about .exes.....
Re:Not sure how this is different (Score:5, Interesting)
If its what I think they're going to do (reputation detaction Ala IE9) it won't help much. See my sig if you want to go more in depth as to why.
Besides, The biggest Threats are the following
1) Malicious Forked Open Source Software
2) Installers with Bundled Adware
for #1: look at VLC. there's so many malicious forks of this I can't even count them. Many times they're just Renames, but other times they have more adware and spyware Embeeded in them than I can count. Hell One I found Shows ads before you watch any video.
Another example is "Fast Browser" which is a chromium browser fork with spyware baked in. it looks exactly like chrome and the only difference I can tell is the Icon (which rips off the chrome Icon, only Square) and the name in the about box.
for #2. Lets do a search for VLC and highlight any download site that's not from videolan.org or sourceforge (although I should count sourceforge. they're doing this too now) (obfuscated to avoid clicking)
VLCapp,com ..and these are just the results from 1st page direct searches or ads from bing and google alone.
vlcmediaplayer,org
Softonic,com
4soft,org
softwareinstall,com
soft82,com
softdls,com
download-pc,com
download366,com
os-downloads,com
I can all but guarantee that downloading anything from the above sites will get you some Potentially unwanted program or virus. I just wish that someone would make an Adblock plus list like the malware domain list for fake downloading sites.
Now I know that it sounds like I'm Picking on VLC here, but it's just one of the more hijacked examples. You can do this with just about any popular Program. Firefox, Chrome, 7zip, Openoffice, Minecraft, even IE10 and Windows Media Player have software wrappers.
Hell. Even the Microsoft Store in WIndows 8 isn't safe. Do a search for VLC there and the first or second hit is a link to getdesktopapp,com which piles on the junkware. when you look at the app's Publisher. he's doing the same thing with peazip, 7zip UMPlayer and openoffice.
If Chrome does something about these software wrappers then were talking, otherwise it's nothing new from what they were doing before or what IE's been doing for years, and that hasn't stopped anything either.
Re: (Score:2)
I just install software from the signed application repository...
Re: (Score:3)
Many of these "forks" may do nothing wrong legally (some may infringe trademarks). I wonder what criteria Google will use for blocking potentially legal apps
Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, can you let me choose for myself which filetypes are safe or not? For my job, I have to download many PDFs (up to 100 at a time) and Chrome asks me EVERY... SINGLE... FUCKING... TIME "This type of file can harm your computer. Do you want to keep <filename> anyway?"
LISTEN IDIOT: These PDFs come from a trusted source. Yes, I have to download them. No, I don't want to view them in the browser right this second. Also, I'm on a Mac, and also also, I don't use Acrobat, and also also also, this is my work machine, and IF anything would happen to it, I'd let I.T. blow it away and re-image it if needed. LET ME DOWNLOAD THE GODDAMN FILE. Every few months I search to see if there's a way to disable this, and so far I've come up empty.
Needless to say, I don't use Chrome for this part of my job.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got half a clue, you're already not using Adobe, and the goddamn thing should be getting out of your way after the first time you tell it "shut up, I know what I'm doing."
Wanting to download PDFs from the web is "exceptional?" Are you one of those "UX" BSAs?
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the PDF, you may have to use Adobe. There's features in the PDF standard I haven't found in other readers, such as 3D animation. And, yes, there are legitimate uses for that.
Re: (Score:3)
And, yes, there are legitimate uses for that.
That's arguable. The entire point of PDF, before they started hanging bags on it to turn it into a replacement for HTML forms, was to generate a document for uniform printing.
"Expanding with the technology" vs. "Creeping Featurism" is in the eye of the beholder.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the only way we had to get 3D models to people who are restricted in the software they can install (very common in a business environment). We're working on better methods now, but we got them to people who otherwise could not have seen them properly.
Had these people been limited to Foxit or Evince, they would not have been able to see our models.
Yes, I know this wouldn't be a reason in an ideal world, but in this one it matters.
Re: (Score:2)
For my job, I have to download many PDFs (up to 100 at a time) and Chrome asks me EVERY... SINGLE... FUCKING... TIME "This type of file can harm your computer. Do you want to keep <filename> anyway?"
Yeah, I find this a bit annoying too. At the same time it allows me to happily download EXEs. I don't see the big risk in opening PDFs, it is not a format which often carries vulnerabilities.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I find this a bit annoying too. At the same time it allows me to happily download EXEs. I don't see the big risk in opening PDFs, it is not a format which often carries vulnerabilities.
Are you new to the internet? PDFs with Adobe reader is generally in the top attack vectors.
Adobe Reader for Android? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then why does Chrome for Android display a scare bar for PDF downloads even on a platform to which Adobe Reader isn't even ported?
It is ported, actually [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There is a script bunny tool called metasploit. It includes something called "reverse_tcp_bind." Since it has appeared pdfs have become quite the thriving infection route.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any easy way to clean dubious PDFs? I'm bothered by the number of PDFs I have than might contain exploits if I ever accidentally had an Adobe product installed on some system. Any open source "PDF cleaner" or somesuch?
Re: (Score:2)
Try VisualWget. Might save you some time in general.
Then again that's for windows. Fairly sure there are a few apps that do the same thing though.
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Informative)
Now, can you let me choose for myself which filetypes are safe or not? For my job, I have to download many PDFs (up to 100 at a time) and Chrome asks me EVERY... SINGLE... FUCKING... TIME "This type of file can harm your computer.
this will remove the down warning for all file types.
on OSX, open /Users/yourusername/Library/Preferences/com.google.Chrome.plist and replace the "download" section with this
"download": {
"directory_upgrade": true,
"prompt_for_download": false
},
found it in 2 minutes. my google fu is strong.
Re: (Score:1)
If you have to download 100 PDFs from a trusted source at one time, then you shouldn't be using a web browser. That's a job for perhaps a WebDAV setup or any one of a zillion syncing solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, CTRL-Leftclick ought to download the link target (just like it used to...)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, it doesn't do that to me.
What if you view it then type CTRL-S then ENTER? Is that easier?
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine when this same company, instead of driving your browser, is driving your car and deciding where you go.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
$ wget -i url_list.txt
Re: (Score:2)
Fix has already landed on Chrome Canary: http://crrev.com/231405 [crrev.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should go fork yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
What a stupid suggestion.
How long until "malicious" defined as ... (Score:4, Interesting)
...software contrary to corporate (RIAA/BSA) interests?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...software contrary to security (NSA) interests?
This is 2013. Fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft tried this before (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft tried this before (Score:5, Insightful)
God, that sounds like extortion.
"It'd be a shame if we told the user that your software might maybe sorta kinda be malware."
Key continuity management (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Extortion is the bread and butter of most major software companies' security standards. If you think this is bad, you should look into what is involved when updating Oracle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well, Microsoft also bugs me whenever I click a link in Outlook that leads to a file on my company's SharePoint site. A/V on the server, A/V on every desktop, and I have to click "Yes, I really want this file" every single time.
Re: (Score:2)
Your SharePoint site isn't in the trusted zone. Get your company's IT department to fix that with a simple Group Policy update.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF, *this* is what the flag in the corner is nagging me about? "Turn on SmartScreen (Important)" yeah wouldn't you love that M$
So long as no one reports it to Microsoft (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently so, since any comments pointing out how prone this will be to abuse, and the nature of the abuse, are being aggressively down-modded.
software repository (Score:2)
it would be nice if there was a Windows program to install programs from a centralized repository of software that was actually scrutinized to ensure it's malware free and perhaps a security risk rating. It certainly would make open source programs more attractive because they could quickly be certified as being malware free. the rest wouldn't be able to be certified as being 100% malware free since there cant be a true analysis of the software without REing the whole thing unless they submit the source b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have had one for over a year. It's called the store app in Windows 8 and 8.1. It seems to meet all your requirements.
let's be honest, those are malware. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
it would be nice if there was a Windows program to install programs from a centralized repository
Sounds good.
software that was actually scrutinized to ensure it's malware free
Sounds even better.
open source programs [...] could quickly be certified as being malware free.
BAHAHAHAHA! You really think Microsoft would give you a package manager and allow open-source programs to appear in the listings?! Oh, man...you almost got me there...
Re: (Score:2)
MS doesn't care either way about open source. What they'd likely object to is small publishers (much like the current "infrequently downloaded").
What we really need, no joke, is "UL for software". Some 3rd party company who's only business is rating software as "not malware", and who is in turn kept honest by the big distros. Then as the little guy you could pay them to test your software, and even the most paranoid could trust that. (That's how it works today with UL and most things in your home, and U
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like your argument would be more persuasive if I knew what you meant by 'UL'...two-letter acronyms have a hell of a lot of meanings...
Re: (Score:1)
I feel like your argument would be more persuasive if I knew what you meant by 'UL'...two-letter acronyms have a hell of a lot of meanings...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in the US (or have products also sold in the US), look on the back of, well, anything with a plug and you'll see the "UL" logo. It stands for Underwriters Laboratories and they do safety testing (mostly fire safety, and not just electronics). It's an great example of a non-governmental safely solution that actually works.
I've been involved in making products that need to be UL tested, and they're great to work with for such a big organization. They're test quickly, and tell you exactly what fai
Wow ... (Score:2)
You mean it might stop offering to install Flash for me?
That would be nice.
Will Mac version use "Allow Apps Downloaded from"? (Score:2)
On MacOS there's a setting, "Allow Apps Downloaded from", under the security and privacy section of the control panel that controls this behavior. If I have that set to download from anywhere, it should download from anywhere.
let me add this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The wave of the future (Score:1)
Stupidity is here to stay choice is not.
The HOW it is implemented is important (Score:2, Interesting)
If this feature is implemented as a cloud service, i.e. each URL will be checked by Google before the browser is executing it then say good-bye privacy. It would be the last thing that you would like to have: a browser that spies on you.
If this feature is implemented with a signature file that is updated from time to time, then it is the same snake-oil as each anti-virus and is probably not harmful. It might even be useful for those people who also have use for anti-virus software.
warning bypass (Score:2)
Chrome asks me EVERY... SINGLE... FUCKING... TIME "This type of file can harm your computer. Do you want to keep anyway?"
seems like this is a common and unnecessary annoyance for non-Windows people.
this will remove the down warning for all file types.
1) open preference file /Users/yourusername/Library/Preferences/com.google.Chrome.plist
-- OS X:
-- Linux: ~/.config/chromium/Default/Preferences
-- Windows: GFY, you need this warning.
2) replace the "download" section with this
"download": {
"directory_upgrade": true,
"prompt_for_download": false
},
Re: (Score:2)
Windows: GFY, you need this warning.
No, we really don't.
Wait until you get Cryptolocker (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have a version available for Linux yet?
Re: (Score:1)
who decides? (Score:2)
The disease is well-understood. (Score:1)
The really cool part is it blocks poisonous viral meme downloads, too, so you only see a black screen when you go to Huffington Post*.
*Substitute Drudge Report for humor effect if you are already infected with the Huffington meme defense mechanism.
malicious to whom?? (Score:1)
Depends on perspective.